Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education Science

Firstborn Get the Brains 467

Dekortage writes "Eldest children have higher IQs than their siblings, according to a recent study by Norwegian researchers. The study focused on men, particularly 'on teasing out the biological effects of birth order from the effects of social status,' but indicates that the senior boy in a family (either by being firstborn, or if an elder brother died) has an average IQ two or three points higher than younger brothers. As noted in the New York Times coverage, 'Experts say it can be a tipping point for some people — the difference between a high B average and a low A, for instance... that could mean the difference between admission to an elite private college and a less exclusive public one.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firstborn Get the Brains

Comments Filter:
  • IQ != Intelligence (Score:4, Informative)

    by h2oliu ( 38090 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @09:29AM (#19607255)
    In spite of what some would like to tell you, IQ is not a measurement of intelligence. It could be considered a measurement of knowledge and training. Admittedly those who are "More intelligent" in theory could learn better, but these things are so screwy that this is essentially meaningless.

    Maybe first born are just home bodies, and thus spend more time studying.
  • Re:Ugh IQ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by kripkenstein ( 913150 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @09:48AM (#19607485) Homepage

    A difference of three IQ points seems almost within the margin of error
    Since you say 'seems', I presume you didn't read TFA, otherwise you would know whether it did or didn't fall within the margin of error. And therefore it appears that you don't understand the concept of 'margin of error'. The margin of error can be arbitrarily small, it depends on the sample size .

    In this study, they had 241,310 subjects. If memory serves me right, the population standard deviation is 15 points, so we have a margin or error along the order of 15 divided by the square root of 241,310, or 0.03. That is, two orders of magnitude smaller than 3 IQ points, which to you 'seems almost within the margin of error'.

    Of course, the actual margin of error depends on other things, such as how many children were firstborn in the sample, how many were secondborn, etc. Still, with such a large sample, the final standard deviation should be much smaller than a single IQ point, making their conclusions statistically interesting. And, in fact, if the results were not statistically significant, they wouldn't get published very easily, and certainly not in Science.
  • by fropenn ( 1116699 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @09:58AM (#19607605)
    Ah, yes...another case of "how to distort the truth with statistics".

    Statistically, when you have a large number of individuals in your study (e.g., 250,000 is a huge number) you have a large amount of statistical power to detect minor differences.

    In this case, while they detected a significant difference in IQ scores (whether or not IQ scores measure actual intelligence is subject of a different post), the difference may not have any practical meaning - "2 or 3 points" on a scale that has a standard deviation of 15 points is a very small effect (and thus has little practical meaning).
  • by hoggoth ( 414195 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @10:30AM (#19608045) Journal
    > Well, that explains why I'm a network admin instead of the CIO.
    > I also wonder if being a middle child has any effect on IQ...

    Well, the article said if the first-born dies the second born's IQ jumps up. You know what you have to do...

  • Re:2 or 3 points? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Friday June 22, 2007 @10:59AM (#19608501) Homepage Journal
    What you're talking about is standard deviation, not standard error. SE = SD/sqrt(n), and given that in this case SD = 15 (by definition of IQ) and n = 241310, we have a standard error approaching 0.

    It's a little more complicated than that, of course, since the "n" here has to be applied to each group separately; for the sake of argument, let's assume the sample was equally divided between first-, second-, and third-borns, that means about 80000 in each group, which means the SE is about 0.053. This is plenty to detect the kind of differences they're talking about.
  • by chrisbro ( 207935 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @11:46AM (#19609169)
    Not so fast. An amazing book by a PhD (heh), The Millionaire Mind [amazon.com], goes into statistical analysis of various attributes of millionaires. Some interesting findings from here [crowngrp.net]...

    • Average GPA: 2.92
    • Average SAT: 1190
    • And to back you up a little...90% are college graduates, 52% have advanced degrees


    His analysis of all these things led him to believe that academic underachievers of a certain vein learn creative ways to get around things, or are out to prove people wrong regarding others saying they'll never amount to anything due to poor grades.
  • by linuxrocks123 ( 905424 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:09PM (#19611327) Homepage Journal
    > If you've got top grades, you earn a chance at being accepted to a Law school (for example). Once you've done your time, you are practically guaranteed a six-figure income: that's money in your pocket because you excelled at school.

    http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_/ _Lawyer/Salary [payscale.com]

    More like, "almost a 6-figure income after 20 years". You, like many non-lawyers, grossly overestimate how much lawyers are paid.

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...